for thinking that giving blind people more independence by letting them have driverless cars is a bad thing?

[wannaBe]

Yes. Provocative thread title for a reason because I want people to agree with me...

last week a blind man testdrove a

\link{\driverless car}

Lots of people are saying this is a wonderful thing. The man in question said that this would give him a far greater level of independence and would change his life. Even I have jokingly said that I want one.

But actually, the idea of blind people in driverless cars out there, on the roads, makes me very uncomfortable.

If you go out there in a car there is always a risk. From your driving, other peoples' driving, other factors on the roads. But to an extent you can control what happens to your car. You may not always be in control, but you can at least see to assess the risks, and still people have accidents.

So what happens if a driverless car, carrying a blind person only, goes out there, and has an accident. What happens if it hits another car; mounts the pavement; kills a child? Who is then liable?

There are lots of people in my circle who think this is a perfectly valid thing, and who think that I'm just not open to change. I am possibly one of the most independent-thinking people I know, but I think there comes a point where someone's desire for independence should not come at the price of other peoples' safety.

I won't lie - I would love to try one out. But I certainly don't think that they should be routinely allowed on the roads. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

I think that driverless cars may well reduce accidents in the future. This car should cut out human error. Ofcourse cyclists and pedistrians will still make errors of judgements and there will still be accidents.

"What happens if it hits another car; mounts the pavement; kills a child? Who is then liable? "

good question.

It says that driver error is the biggest cause of road accidents. Not technical failure...so by that I might assume that cars will make less mistakes than humans...so YABU.

rt they might - if everyone had one. But technology is fallible too, and surely even technology can be overridden?

so - driverless car where the occupant could override it if necessary is one thing. But driverless car where the occupant wouldn't know that the technology had gone wrong and where, even if they did, wouldn't be able to take over?

A million people die every year worldwide due to sighted people in full control of the car doing bloody stupid things while driving.

Yes we need to be very careful about driverless cars, but not forget the risks of doing nothing - you don't want to end up like the thousand odd people who died because they were too scared to fly after 9/11 and drove instead, or the people who die on the roads because they can't take a train while the rail system is being carefully checked after a minor derailment.

Computers are much better and quicker than humans at assessing risks and reacting accordingly so I think accidents are much less likely to happen in a computer-driven car.

As to who's liable in an accident - interesting, but something the insurance companies will be most interested in. From a human perspective, unless something is intentional it doesn't really make any difference where blame lies after the damage is done.

yes. but no. but yes. but no. but yes. my brain ca't at this early hour.

what ifs all over the place.

I don't think they will be routinely allowed o n the roads any time soon, and if they are, it won't be without very rigorous safety testing.

I think if technology is available that can safely give people that level of independence, then of course it should be used. There are probably plenty of people already on the road that shouldn't be, because their eyesight or reaction times are no longer as good as they used to be, and I think they pose a far greater risk. That's a different subject obviously, but it seems very unfair to say that one group of people shouldn't use the road while doing nothing about another group of unsafe people using the road.

Driverless cars seem like a brilliant idea, and the sooner they are accessible to regular people the better.

But where have I said that driverless cars are bad? I haven't. What I've said is that I am uncomfortable with the notion of such a driverless car being out there on the road with no-one being able to take control f it - or potentially to even see if something happens.

If someone with no sight goes out in their driverless car and hits a child because the child ran out in the road, they wouldn't even know.

Put it another way - would you send your kids out to school in the driverless car and have the car bring itself home again after?

I'm more worried about:

uninsured drivers
very old drivers with poor reflexes
drunk drivers
drugged drivers
overseas drivers who've never passed a test in this country

I would love car that could reverse parallel park by itself.

I imagine that driverless car would have better fuel ecomony and be more enviromentally friendly. A driverless car would be unable to speed or cut people up at round abouts.

I expect the cost of a driverless car will mean it takes a long time to become common place.

You can get one of those ReallyTired - my parents in law have a VW Golf that does. You press some button to engage the system, drive slowly past the space, stop and then take your hands off the wheel and it does the rest.

YABVVVVVVVU for such a horrible, disablist title.

You're debating driverless cars, not blind people.

If a child runs out onto the road and gets knocked over, that's not the driver (or non drivers) fault. That would be the fault of whoever should have had control of the child. Not that that would make a difference if a child was killed or injured, the horrible outcome would be the same, but it would not be fair to prevent blind people accessing technology like this because of something that should be prevented by someone else.

If I was blind and was told that I could have my independence if it weren't for other people not being able to prevent their children running out onto a road, I would be pretty pissed off.

No, I wouldn't allow my children to go in a pre programmed car to take them to school without an adult, but it's not the same thing. A blind adult is a lot more capable of sorting out an incident than no adult at all.

"If a child runs out onto the road and gets knocked over, that's not the driver (or non drivers) fault."

I hope to fuck you aren't a driver (although I bet you are).

If a child runs out onto the road a driver who knocks them down might well be at fault.

When you are driving you are supposed to be able to stop in an emergency, such as a child running out.

You don't just get to run down children and blame their parents

wannaBe

I think this technology could be great. Your questions about responsibility in the case of an accident are salient, but there are also very good reasons to doubt the safety of allowing people to be in charge of such dangerous vehicles.

Plenty of drivers don't even understand the legal responsibilities they take on not to hurt people when they drive, never mind driving sensibly.

A day might come when none of us will be allowed to get into a car and drive it around as we see fit, blaming dead children for being children, using a mobile phone while driving, speeding on narrow country roads, not driving for the conditions.

"If a child runs out onto the road and gets knocked over, that's not the driver (or non drivers) fault. That would be the fault of whoever should have had
control of the child. Not that that would make a difference if a child was killed or injured, the horrible outcome would be the same, but it would not
be fair to prevent blind people accessing technology like this because of something that should be prevented by someone else." so where do we draw the line under this level of blame then?

If a child runs out in the road and the driver is able to stop in time thus preventing injury (or worse) to the child, the driver is praised for his quick thinking and the child (or the parent) was at fault.

If a child runs out in the road and the driver, due to the fact he is intoxicated/on his mobile phone/changing a cd, runs over the child and kills it, the driver is said to be at fault - even though the parent should have (in your opinion) had better control of the child.

If a child runs out in front of a driverless car (with or without an actual driver present) and is hit and killed, the child (or the parent) is at fault? Even though the technology failed to stop the car thus killing the child?

I think it is a very dangerous road to go down where humans are held accountable over machines.

"If I was blind and was told that I could have my independence if it weren't for other people not being able to prevent their children running out onto
a road, I would be pretty pissed off. " I am blind and while there is always a desire for independence where as yet that independence does not exist, I believe that as a responsible individual I am not merely responsible for my own selfish wants and needs but on a greater level I need to have some awareness that in some instances my independence could come at the price of someone else's safety. And that if I went out in a car that had no driver, and the technology to take me wherever I wanted to go, and that car failed, or killed someone, I would feel responsible, regardless of the fact that it was machinery that had failed and not me personally. And I believe that for most people, if their child was killed by a car that had no driver, and no-one to take control of it, questions would be asked as to how we got to a point where machines, and machines alone were allowed out on the roads...

"YABVVVVVVVU for such a horrible, disablist title." sorry but pmsl. believing that something shouldn't necessarily be available to someone with a disability doesn't automatically make one disablist. As I said above, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

"You're debating driverless cars, not blind people." No, you are wrong. I am debating blind people in driverless cars. Perhaps you'd actually like to read the thread...

I read your title and was a bit put out by it. I thought to myself (no word of a lie) of course they should have their independence. Maybe just not to drive....) and then I clicked on the thread....

It's not as if driverless cars are going to be available any time soon OP, so I think you're being unnecessarily alarmist. And your title was a bit shit as it doesn't really tally with the subject which is 'should blind people be allowed to drive driverless cars' which is not the same as 'independence'.

I'm not trying to blame parents, I'm trying to make the point that I don't believe technology should be withheld from someone whose life could be transformed by it because of something that is out of their control.

I would have thought that stopping in emergencies is something that the makers of these cars have already considered, and there must be sensors or something on these cars that would detect a child running out into the road.

fair enough. although I confess that I deliberately phrased the title like that in order to get people to click, and as I am my self blind I didn't see an issue with it iyswim, and most of the talk around this car has been about the provision of greater independence... if that makes sense?

I can see your point, wanneBe. I had no idea you were blind, so I thought initially that this was one of 'those' threads and reacted accordingly.

I've not really seen or heard much about driverless cars, and had no idea they were being promoted as giving greater independence to blind people.

I'm not sure how safe I would feel about being in a driverless car, let alone the risks to pedestrians...

WannaBe would you drive one of them? I can't drive and think that I would be happy to go in one of them...in fact it would be great! People could order them like taxis or share them!

Whilst I understand OP's concern, if you look at the facts to date.

Basically Google have been trialling driverless cars in the US for a long time now.

They've driven hundreds of thousands of miles on real roads where there is a driver but he wasn't actually driving (although he can take over).

In all that time there has been 1 accident with the cars. And at the time it was the human which was in control of the car.

Take a closer look at the technology yourself (warning, little bit of swearing)

Now if it were me, I'd love to see driverless cars on the road of this standard. Think. No more speeding. No more people tailgating, no unsafe overtaking. No overtired drivers. Reaction times measured in milliseconds. If someone is an idiot on manual, the other cars can play their cameras and telemetry back to see what happened.

And yes....think of the freedom for blind people who can now travel just as easily as a able bodied person.

Taking it one step further, planes can already take off, fly and land without human intervention at all. It's just us puny humans who aren't ready to jump in a plane without a human in charge.

I think the problem is that driverless cars and driven cars would be difficult to integrate. If EVERY car were driverless, they would all be computer-driven and therefore every car would be able to anticipate the actions of every other car. But people are unpredictable. Drivers will make unexpected decisions, turn when they shouldn't, stop without warning. Would a driverless car 'hear' a warning blast on a car horn? If a car in front of you is weaving slightly, you are pre-warned that it might do something unexpected and are ready to take action; would a driverless car do the same?

I can see that a driverless car would 'work' on a motorway but I would be very uncomfortable sitting as a passenger in one in a town where I would be able to see dangers ahead but be unable to react to them. And this is essentially the problem with having a blind person 'driving' the car; they aren't able to take control if the car comes up on a situation it can't cope with.

I wouldn't get in one blind folded, put it like that. But then I am a loon who doesn't like falling asleep on a plane in case the pilot needs me.

would I drive one... probably in order to have gained the experience... Would I drive one, unassisted, with no-one else next to me, on an open road wiith all the other people and cars out there, knowing that if something happened there would be nothing I could do to prevent it? No I'm not sure I would.